 |
|

Legal news from Tuesday, December 29, 2009 |
 |
|


Afghanistan president creates delegation to investigate civilian deaths
Brian Jackson on December 29, 2009 11:30 AM ET

[JURIST] Afghan president Hamid Karzai [official website; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday appointed a delegation [press release] to begin an investigation of ten civilian deaths, including eight schoolchildren, that are thought to have occurred during a raid by international forces in Kunar province. The raid in the Narang district occurred on December 26th, and allegedly involved NATO forces [WSJ report], though their involvement has not been confirmed. The same day that Karzai announced the formation of the special delegation, a UN committee released figures [AFP report] that show that civilian deaths in Afghanistan in 2009 are up by 10% over deaths in 2008.
Civilian deaths as a result of US or coalition forces raids are a sensitive topic in US-Afghan relations. In June, General Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan, announced that protecting civilians [BBC report] is the top priority of US forces. In May, the Afghan parliament demanded that restrictions be placed [JURIST report] on airstrikes following an attack that resulted in the death of 140 civilians.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Ninth Circuit upholds ruling limiting use of tasers
Sarah Miley on December 29, 2009 11:04 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] ruled [text, PDF] Tuesday that police must face an "immediate threat" from an offender before using a taser gun to subdue them. Sacramento County police officer Brian McPherson had shot Carl Bryan with a taser gun during a traffic stop causing him to fall face-first on the asphalt, fracturing his teeth and causing facial contusions. The court held that because Bryan's actions posed no threat to McPherson or others, the use of the taser was unwarranted and unconstitutional: Although Bryan had shouted expletives to himself while pulling his car over and had taken to shouting gibberish, and more expletives, outside his car, at no point did he level a physical or verbal threat against Officer McPherson. An unarmed, stationary individual, facing away from an officer at a distance of fifteen to twenty-five feet is far from an immediate threat to that officer. Nor was Bryans erratic, but nonviolent, behavior a potential threat to anyone else... The circumstances here show that Officer McPherson was confronted by, at most, a disturbed and upset young man, not an immediately threatening one. The case originated as a civil suit by Bryan against McPherson for the use of excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [text] and assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, a violation of California Civil Code § 52.1 [text]. The court below had also found in Bryan's favor.
The ruling is one of the most significant decisions yet concerning limitations on taser guns. In February, the American Civil Liberties Union [official website] petitioned [press release] the US Supreme Court to hear a case involving a Florida resident claiming excessive use of a taser gun by a law enforcement official. The petition involves the 2008 decision [text, PDF] of the Eleventh Circuit in which an officer was found to be justified in using the weapon. The event was captured [YouTube, video] on the officer's patrol car video camera.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|